Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Previous copyright law set the duration of copyright protection at 28 years with a possibility of a 28 year extension, for a total maximum term of 56 years. The 1976 Act, however, substantially increased the term of protection. Section 302 of the Act extended protection to "a term consisting of the life of the author and fifty years after the ...
The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". [1][2] With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.
[8] [9] [10] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works". [11]
Under U.S. copyright law, the legality of a given work of fanfiction will depend principally on three legal doctrines: (1) copyrightability of the underlying source work; (2) the derivative work right; and (3) fair use. To have copyright protection under U.S. law, a work must be an "original [work] of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of ...
We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is "authorized by the law" and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)." In June 2011, Judge Philip Pro of the District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v.
For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. [1] YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. [1] When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning ...
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. [1] This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use ...
Although its formulation in Section 107 tracks very closely the iterations in modern case law, the factors themselves are essentially the same as set forth by Judge Story in 1841. Consequently, the Folsom v. Marsh case is regarded as establishing the principle of fair use in American copyright law.